The Debates!

[Y2HH]

Im not defending either one.

 

You literally said Romney was "great" last night, where I said Obama was terrible and Romney was "not good". To me that looked like you defending Romney.

 

Where have I defended Obama?

 

I just have attacked Romney. I dont defend Obama, I defend my positions. Until Obama has me on the payroll, he doesnt get my services.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending Romney in the things he said...I'm defending him only on how he came off in that debate, and regardless of how or why, he came off looking great, even if it was only because Obama was high on depressants the entire time.

[Soxbadger]

What kind of question is this? Obama is the President of the United States of America. Of course I care what he has to say. The other choice is to bury my head in the sand with all of the rest of the people who "don't care about politics" because "it doesn't matter", but freak out about things like American Idol and NFL replacement officials, as if they do matter.

 

Romney doesn't have an economic plan. What else is there to say? He is running the same campaign the Democrats ran four years ago... I'm the one who is not the President, which is reason enough to vote for me. Romney is a con-artist running for President. I have zero respect for him, and won't be voting for him.

 

I meant why do you care so much about comparing Obama to Romney. They are both terrible.

[southsider2k5]

I meant why do you care so much about comparing Obama to Romney. They are both terrible.

 

I see Obama's change back and forth on gay marriage in the same light as Romney's change on health care. They were both opportunistic jumps at poll ratings. One guy gets praised for his moves, and the other gets demolished. To me both are BS. It is a fair comparison because both are front burner topics in this election.

[Soxbadger]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending Romney in the things he said...I'm defending him only on how he came off in that debate, and regardless of how or why, he came off looking great, even if it was only because Obama was high on depressants the entire time.

 

I agree he looked great. But I dont care about how someone looks, I care about the substance. Romney is a good salesman, he makes you want to believe in his plan.

 

Guys like that can be dangerous.

[Y2HH]

I see Obama's change back and forth on gay marriage in the same light as Romney's change on health care. They were both opportunistic jumps at poll ratings. One guy gets praised for his moves, and the other gets demolished. To me both are BS. It is a fair comparison because both are front burner topics in this election.

 

[Soxbadger]

I see Obama's change back and forth on gay marriage in the same light as Romney's change on health care. They were both opportunistic jumps at poll ratings. One guy gets praised for his moves, and the other gets demolished. To me both are BS. It is a fair comparison because both are front burner topics in this election.

 

Its not even that, its that Mitt last night basically just announced he had a new economic plan and made it up on the fly. That is just scary. Obama is far more calculated in his front running, he probably mulls it over for months before doing anything.

 

I have no problem with Mitt saying that after years of watching Mass that he may have been wrong. That is reasonable and can be defended. I just didnt like the "surprise" aspect of his debate tactic.

[Soxbadger]

I dont recall any part of the debate last night involving gay marriage. I have just been talking about what happened last night. If there is a discussion on gay marriage, Romney has every right to call Obama on it.

[Jenksismyhero]

Its not even that, its that Mitt last night basically just announced he had a new economic plan and made it up on the fly. That is just scary. Obama is far more calculated in his front running, he probably mulls it over for months before doing anything.

 

I have no problem with Mitt saying that after years of watching Mass that he may have been wrong. That is reasonable and can be defended. I just didnt like the "surprise" aspect of his debate tactic.

 

Come on. These are debates! They're generalized talking points. Guess what, both candidates want to make the streets safer, make our kids smarter, compete better in the global economy and make everyone rich! How are they going to do that? Who the f*** knows, but it sounds good, which is the ONLY point of the debates. You act as if this is some new trend.

 

And really, I don't want Romney to tell me his exact plan because in 4 months it'll be a different world. I want to know his general philosophy on the role of government, taxation, regulations, etc. etc. I don't need him to promise me a cell phone or escape from my mortgage to be happy with his performance. I wanted him to call out Obama's bulls*** and he did exactly that. And Obama lost because he DIDN'T do that.

 

And yes, I DO think Romney is a crap candidate, but he's the lesser of two evils at this point and I think he's 100 times more moderate than he has come off. He'll be Reagan-esque without the personality.

[Soxbadger]

And really, I don't want Romney to tell me his exact plan because in 4 months it'll be a different world. I want to know his general philosophy on the role of government, taxation, regulations, etc. etc.

 

And yes, I DO think Romney is a crap candidate, but he's the lesser of two evils at this point and I think he's 100 times more moderate than he has come off. He'll be Reagan-esque without the personality.

 

1) What was his general philosophy? Because Im pretty sure that everyones philosophy is that there should be lower taxes, the US should make more money, not have to cut spending and reduce the debt.

 

But give me some explanation. For example: I am going to end this credit, which will result in 1tril or Im going to end this loop hole. You have to have at least some idea of what you want to do. I dont need every single thing, but give me something to work with.

 

2) I agree that he will be like Reagan, but I dont think you meant the comparison to be about exploding our national debt.

Edited October 4, 2012 by Soxbadger

[Jenksismyhero]

1) What was his general philosophy? Because Im pretty sure that everyones philosophy is that there should be lower taxes, the US should make more money, not have to cut spending and reduce the debt.

 

But give me some explanation. For example: I am going to end this credit, which will result in 1tril or Im going to end this loop hole. You have to have at least some idea of what you want to do. I dont need every single thing, but give me something to work with.

 

2) I agree that he will be like Reagan, but I dont think you meant the comparison to be about exploding our national debt.

 

Implied in all of his talks in the past is the same conservative economic mantra for the last 30 years - if you lower taxes you're going to increase economic activity and bring in more tax revenues. Getting rid of some credits ("loopholes") will keep some much needed tax revenue. Yes, he's going to have to state which credits he's talking about, but I don't expect him to list 40 things in his 5 minute response at a debate.

 

http://www.mittromney.com/issues/tax

 

I'm a huge fan of the individual tax initiatives, especially getting rid of taxes for investment gains of middle class people. Not crazy about the business side, but that's going to be a tougher sell to Congress so odds are low that'll happen anyway.

[mr_genius]

Hahaha. So many excuses for Obama! You guys are great.

[Soxbadger]

Implied in all of his talks in the past is the same conservative economic mantra for the last 30 years - if you lower taxes you're going to increase economic activity and bring in more tax revenues. Getting rid of some credits ("loopholes") will keep some much needed tax revenue. Yes, he's going to have to state which credits he's talking about, but I don't expect him to list 40 things in his 5 minute response at a debate.

 

http://www.mittromney.com/issues/tax

 

I'm a huge fan of the individual tax initiatives, especially getting rid of taxes for investment gains of middle class people. Not crazy about the business side, but that's going to be a tougher sell to Congress so odds are low that'll happen anyway.

 

I understand the theory, the problem is that Mitt isnt going to really the tax burden on Americans. Your current tax burden is arguably 2 parts, 1) the tax and 2) credits, deductions, etc.

 

Mitt repeatedly stated that closing the loop holes, reducing deductions would ensure that the US revenue stayed the same.

 

Thus all he is doing is changing how your tax burden looks. Youll get a lower tax bill to start, but youll get less credits/deductions, thus end up with the same tax burden.

 

That doesnt encourage anything. The only way to really lower the tax burden is to either 1) lower taxes and keep all deductions/credits the same or 2) lower taxes so much that they arent offset by less deductions/credits.

 

I just briefly glanced at his pdf plan http://www.mittromney.com/sites/default/fi...Growth-Full.pdf

 

Youll notice he explicitly states what taxes he wants to reduce or remove, but interestingly he does not state what credits/write-offs/deductions he wants to eliminate.

 

Its concerning, because youd think in an 87 page document he can list 1 deduction/write-off/credit that he thinks is causing a problem.

[Steve9347]

The only thing worse than reading about people talking politics on Soxtalk is reading about people talk about politics on Facebook.

[Soxbadger]

The only thing worse than reading about people talking politics on Soxtalk is reading about people talk about politics on Facebook.

 

No one is forcing you to read this thread.

[Y2HH]

No one is forcing you to read this thread.

 

Seconded.

[NorthSideSox72]

Romney won the debate, no contest. His whole approach was pretty brilliant, from a performance standpoint. He was focused and to-the-point, he hammered a small list of key themes, he came off as a business leader. He also did a 180 on some issues right in front of people, and they barely noticed, because Obama was too weak to point it out in a useful way.

 

Obama was professorial and weak, meandered through answers, and had very little to say as to what good he would do in a second term.

 

As for facts, they both played fast and loose, but Romney was clearly doing a lot more fudging and lying... and yet, it didn't matter to most people, because of how well he presented it. It was almost like those two flipped personalities before the debate.

 

[Jake]

It doesn't matter if they "have any real legal power or not", the fact is, he put people EXACTLY like Romney in charge of his jobs creation advisory board. You keep ignoring that, because it fits your agenda, but it's exactly what Obama did.

 

 

I'm not ignoring it but it's a profoundly uninteresting point that you're trying to make. Who else are you going to consult for information on job creation if not potential "job creators"? I have to think, even as a sort of fan of Obama, that you could find far more unsettling examples of his dealing with unseemly people than this one that you keep bringing up. This is part of politics. The people that know most about the things you don't like are the people that do them -- the best regulators are the best of the industry. In some cases, you have to evaluate if someone is being consulted/given power to further their own or former interests or if they are in fact just fabulously qualified due to their previous experience.

 

 

Its not even that, its that Mitt last night basically just announced he had a new economic plan and made it up on the fly. That is just scary. Obama is far more calculated in his front running, he probably mulls it over for months before doing anything.

 

I have no problem with Mitt saying that after years of watching Mass that he may have been wrong. That is reasonable and can be defended. I just didnt like the "surprise" aspect of his debate tactic.

 

This.

 

[Y2HH]

I'm not ignoring it but it's a profoundly uninteresting point that you're trying to make. Who else are you going to consult for information on job creation if not potential "job creators"? I have to think, even as a sort of fan of Obama, that you could find far more unsettling examples of his dealing with unseemly people than this one that you keep bringing up. This is part of politics. The people that know most about the things you don't like are the people that do them -- the best regulators are the best of the industry. In some cases, you have to evaluate if someone is being consulted/given power to further their own or former interests or if they are in fact just fabulously qualified due to their previous experience.

 

 

 

 

This.

 

We disagree on this entirely. I think it shows Obama is a politician just like the rest of them...say one thing, but do another through your actions. Do as I say, not as I do. That's exactly what this highlights. If you [Obama] dislike the way Romney ran Bain, don't f***ing appoint people just like him to ADVISE YOU ON HOW TO CREATE JOBS. How you don't find that to be an interesting discussion is beyond my understanding.

 

Edit: To make it a finer point -- it's not that he's dealing with unseemly people as part of politics, this is a given -- in this case, it's that he says Romney has no idea how to fix the economy, yet he appoints and takes advice from people exactly like Romney on how to do the same thing. I, for one, find that VERY interesting, even if you don't.

Edited October 4, 2012 by Y2HH

[Jake]

We disagree on this entirely. I think it shows Obama is a politician just like the rest of them...say one thing, but do another through your actions. Do as I say, not as I do. That's exactly what this highlights. If you [Obama] dislike the way Romney ran Bain, don't f***ing appoint people just like him to ADVISE YOU ON HOW TO CREATE JOBS. How you don't find that to be an interesting discussion is beyond my understanding.

 

I would be fine with Mitt Romney offering his thoughts via placement on a non-legislative body. If he offered advice that was stupid and self-serving, I could ignore it. If he (or GE) actually offered insight, however, it would be one of a kind and immensely useful since no one else will know the inner workings of massive corporations better. I don't want these people as my President unless they can at least claim an agenda that doesn't seem self-serving and out of touch. I can't believe you don't understand what I'm saying. It's an unavoidable fact that you will have to consult these people to try to find a way to get them to do the things you want them to do.

 

"I will try to create jobs but not include those with the greatest means to create jobs in the discussion" sounds like a great plan.

 

Taking advice =/= giving in. This is just like the "flip flop" discussion. You can have the blinders on and never change anything (not including large corporations in the information gathering process for job creation) or you can be receptive to outside opinions in case your plans are somehow inadequate (put large corporations on advisory groups). Whether the President's position changes will depend on how useful the input from GE is.

[Jake]

Edit: To make it a finer point -- it's not that he's dealing with unseemly people as part of politics, this is a given -- in this case, it's that he says Romney has no idea how to fix the economy, yet he appoints and takes advice from people exactly like Romney on how to do the same thing. I, for one, find that VERY interesting, even if you don't.

 

Well that's different.

 

I don't think BO is trying to say that every big businessman is like Mitt Romney, necessarily. This is more "Mitt Romney's ideas, as stated by himself, are bad and I believe these bad ideas originate in his business background." This means GE may have different ideas (since this person is from GE and is in fact a human being) or perhaps that incorporating certain nuances that Barack, as a non-businessman, may not have known about can still be useful even if the general plan on the whole sucks.

 

But it is important to make sure we consider Mitt Romney and any particular corporation head as two different people.

[Y2HH]

Well that's different.

 

I don't think BO is trying to say that every big businessman is like Mitt Romney, necessarily. This is more "Mitt Romney's ideas, as stated by himself, are bad and I believe these bad ideas originate in his business background." This means GE may have different ideas (since this person is from GE and is in fact a human being) or perhaps that incorporating certain nuances that Barack, as a non-businessman, may not have known about can still be useful even if the general plan on the whole sucks.

 

But it is important to make sure we consider Mitt Romney and any particular corporation head as two different people.

 

They may be two different people, but they're both businessmen that look at the bottom line much in the same regard. By and large, Bain was known was a job shipper/outsourcer...which is exactly what GE has become in recent years under Immelt's lead, and he's just one of the many Obama appointed to advise him who are HUGE on outsourcing jobs, because it helps their bottom lines despite the fact it kills American jobs. There are plenty of successful businessmen he could have appointed to advise him that DON'T outsource, but he didn't do that...he played politics and doled out favors to what will result in huge campaign contributions.

 

If he doesn't think Romney was a very sound businessman in what he did with Bain regarding American jobs, then he shouldn't be taking advice from people who do business exactly like Romney does when better alternatives exist and could have just as easily been appointed to said advisory board.

Edited October 4, 2012 by Y2HH

[Jenksismyhero]

Lol, this video is great. They are SO angry at Obama.

 

http://washingtonexaminer.com/a-sad-night-...al#.UG38D5jA-b4

 

[MexSoxFan#1]

Lol, this video is great. They are SO angry at Obama.

 

http://washingtonexaminer.com/a-sad-night-...al#.UG38D5jA-b4

I'll be watching FOX news on election night for s***s and giggles. If Republicans think last night's debate was a game changer, they'll be disappointed.

[mr_genius]

Obama was professorial

 

if you mean a drunk, bumbling, professor, then yes Obama was professorial.

 

Romney was clearly doing a lot more fudging and lying

 

i don't agree. clearly Obama was doing a lot more fudging and lying. clearly.

[greg775]

I'll be watching FOX news on election night for s***s and giggles. If Republicans think last night's debate was a game changer, they'll be disappointed.

 

Yeah the msbnc crew was horrified at Obama's performance and still was ripping on Romney, trying to "say the things Obama should have said." That Chris Matthews guy really hates the Republican party, wow.